Sunteți pe pagina 1din 30

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Model of the Port Performance Metrics in Ports by Integration Six Sigma and System Dynamics
Asep Ridwan, Bernd Noche,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Asep Ridwan, Bernd Noche, "Model of the Port Performance Metrics in Ports by Integration Six Sigma and System
Dynamics", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-03-2016-0041
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-03-2016-0041
Downloaded on: 21 November 2017, At: 03:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2017*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:425905 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Model of the Port Performance Metrics in Ports by
Integration Six Sigma and System Dynamics

Abstract
Purpose - This research aims to design a model of the port performance metrics for improving the
quality in ports by integration of six sigma and system dynamics approach.
Design/methodology/approach - The port performance is measured by the sigma value, the
process capability indices, and the cost of poor quality as the performance metrics. A port is a complex
system that requires system dynamics as an appropriate tool to simulate the model dynamically. The
performance metrics focus on measuring the port performance in the entire flow of material in the
cargo-handling process.
Findings - With this model, the changing of the sigma value, the process capability indices, and the
cost of poor quality, can be identified and analyzed the results to improve the performance in ports.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

These metrics are utilized to eliminate ‘waste’ in the cargo-handling process at ports. This waste
consists of lost and damaged cargo, equipment & transporter breakdown, and equipment &
transporter delay time. The port performance metrics model can assess the causal relationships in
ports as a complex system.
Originality/value – Studies on integration between the six sigma model and system dynamics in
ports are few and relatively limited. The port’s performance can be measured directly using the sigma
value, the process capability indices, and the cost of poor quality, in the simulation. The port
performance metrics model will give the decision makers to make some scenarios to contribute for the
optimization of performance in ports.
Keywords Port performance metrics, Six sigma, System dynamics, Simulation, Quality in port
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Many activities in ports are ineffective and inefficient, so a breakthrough is required to
achieve improved performance. The six sigma methodology is known as a breakthrough
in total quality management (TQM) to reduce process variability. Some researchers have
investigated six sigma methodology in ports, such as Nooramin et al. (2011), who
developed an optimization model to minimize truck congestion and Jafari et al. (2013)
who investigated the efficiency rate of container loading and unloading. This research
developed a six sigma methodology to reduce the process variability and the cost of poor
quality of cargo handling, caused by delay time, equipment and transporter breakdown,
damaged cargo, and lost cargo.

The complexity of port requires a tool that can model its system. One of these tools is
system dynamics which is well-known for understanding the dynamic behaviour of the
complex system. Some researchers are using System Dynamics in ports like Briano et
al.(2009) developed a model the Voltri Terminal Europe (VTE) container terminal and,
Mei and Xin (2010) constructed a model of the port operation system based on time,
quality, and profit. This research proposes to build a model that integrates a six sigma
model with system dynamics to improve the performance in ports. Six Sigma focused on
measures the poor quality that it caused by the delay time of equipment and transporter,
lost or damaged cargo, equipment and transporter breakdown. The poor quality can
cause the cost of poor quality. Some researchers investigated the cost of poor quality.
Khataie and Bulgak (2013) introduced a cost of quality decision support model to reduce
the waste factors. Kiani et al. (2009) proposed a model to analyse the influence of costs
of quality. Ramudhin et al. (2008) introduced an integrated model of the cost of quality
and a supply chain network. System dynamics focuses on modelling a complex system in
ports. This research focuses on designing a port performance metrics model to improve
the quality in ports by reducing the cost of poor quality and improving the sigma value
and the process capability indices.

2. Literature Review
The six sigma methodology was introduced by Motorola (1980) and resulted in the
accomplishment of business quality in Motorola. The six sigma standard of 3.4 problems
or defects per million opportunities is used to measure the performance with the 1.5
shifting that is allowed. Six sigma is a part of total quality management (TQM) for
improving a process or product. Six sigma is a new breakthrough in quality
improvement. TQM is a management philosophy that encourages cost reductions,
customer satisfaction, high-quality goods and services, employee empowerment, and the
measurement of results (Gunasekaran and McGaughey, 2003). Six sigma focuses on
reducing excess process variability and poor process centring, so the degree of a defect
becomes minimum or zero. Crosby (1979) states that zero defect planning is one of the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

fourteen steps of the quality improvement program. Juran and Godfrey (1999) indicate
that six sigma mainly focuses on cost reduction, waste reduction, yield improvements,
capacity increases, and cycle-time reduction. Pyzdek (2003) declares that six sigma
involves the reduction of process variation to a minimum so that processes consistently
meet or exceed customer expectations and requirements. Six sigma uses statistical tools
for improving the quality and uses this value as a standard for the industry’s
performance and business strategy.

Pande et al.(2000) report on the five-phase improvement cycle that has become
increasingly common in six sigma organization: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and
Control (DMAIC), which is grounded in the original PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Action)
cycle. The PDCA cycle originally came from the Deming cycle that was developed from
the Shewhart cycle. Deming (2000) explained that the Shewhart cycle can be useful as a
procedure at each stage of improvement and to detect a special cause statistically. The
sigma value is the measurement to assess the performance of the process and the results
of improvement efforts, as a way to measure the quality, and it is used by the business to
measure the quality of control of any process to meet the performance standard
(McCarty et al., 2005). Pande et al.(2000) discuss the difference between “continuous”
and “discrete” (or “attribute”) measures, which is important because it can have an
impact on the measurement definition and data collection. Continuous measurements
are those factors that can be measured on a definitely divisible scale or continuum, e.g.
weight, height, time, etc., whereas a discrete measurement is anything that does not fit
the criteria for continuous measures, e.g. the number of orders processed, the level of
education, rating a record, etc.

Pyzdek (2003) points out that process capability analysis is in two stages: 1) bringing a
process into a state that is controlled statistically in a period; 2) comparing a long-term
process performance to management or engineering requirements that require an
action. Process capability indices can be calculated if the process is under control
statistically. Montgomery (2005) stated that there are two reasons causing poor process
capability: a) poor process centring, and b) excess process variability. Some examples of
process capability indices are Cp and Cpk. Pearn, Wu and Wang (2004) emphasize that
process capability indices are a powerful tool to measure the process performance
practically. Kane (1986) defines that the Cp index potentially measures the process
performance by the process spread related to the specification limits, while the Cpk
index actually measures the process performance by mean measurement of the process.

The cost of poor quality (COPQ) is analyzed to determine the quality of the product or
service process that influences the cost. The COPQ must be eliminated to become
competitive. According to Harrington (1999), many researchers have focused on the
COPQ since 1943. Firstly, Feigenbaum, CEO of General Systems Co., introduces the cost
of quality concept and divides it into four categories, namely prevention cost, appraisal
cost, internal defect cost, and external defect cost (the P-A-F model). Later, Philip
Crosby categorizes the cost of quality, i.e. rework cost, scrap cost, warranty cost, and
quality control labour, and then this is developed into two categories in 1979, i.e.
conformance and non-conformance costs, which are called Crosby’s Model.
Schiffauerova and Thomson (2006) add the opportunity cost and this is discussed by
some researchers such as Carr (1992) and Sandoval-Chávez and Beruvides (1998).
Hansen and Mowen (2006) divided COPQ into two categories based on the following
activities:
1. Control activities: aiming to prevent or detect poor quality that may exist.
2. Failure activities: aiming to respond to the poor quality that exists.
Regarding these activities, most researchers classified the COPQ into four groups,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

including Gryna in Juran and Godfrey (1999); Tsai (1998) in Kiani et al.(2009); Sower,
Quarles and Broussard (2007); Ramudhin, Alzaman and Bulgak (2008); Hansen and
Mowen (2006): 1) prevention costs, 2) appraisal costs, 3) internal failure cost, and 4)
external failure cost.

Simulation using system dynamics (SD) was developed by Forrester (1961) from
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). System dynamics is a computer-aided
approach, initially known as “industrial dynamics” (Forrester, 1961), where industrial
dynamics is described as: “…the study of the information feedback characteristics of
industrial activity to show how organizational structure, amplification (in policies),
and time delays (in decision and actions) interact to influence the success of the
enterprise”. System dynamics consists of two main characteristics, i.e. feedback loop
structures and delay. Pidd (2003) states that delays and feedback loops are the
fundamentals of system dynamics, and are responsible for describing the behavior of the
real system. Later, Yeo et al.(2013) mention that system dynamics consists of two
factors: the system, which indicates an object to be observed, and the dynamics, which
relate to the changes in an object depending on time. System dynamics in a simulation
has the advantage of observing the behavior of the system based on the changing of time.
According to Forrester (1992), system dynamics (SD) leads to equations of the model,
simulation to understanding the dynamic behavior, the evaluation of alternative policies,
education, and the choice of a better policy and implementation.

System thinking is a way to understand and analyze the real system in the world.
Systems in the world are complex problems so that it is needed the system thinking
concepts. Forrester (2007) mentioned that system thinking is the first step to build
System Dynamics from the complex problems. Then, system thinking can generate a
conceptual model that is developed to describe the real system so that the whole system
could be known. Yuan and Wang (2014) states there are two major steps for developing
System Dynamics (SD): 1) conceptual model that describes the real system from a
qualitative point of view; 2) formal System Dynamics (SD) that formulated based on a
conceptual model of professional software package to simulate quantitatively the model
and analyze the results of the simulation. Therefore, it is required to build a conceptual
model for our system. A case study is needed to prove the conceptual model. Regarding
Sterman (2000), conceptualization of case study: 1) problem definition; 2) identification
of key variables; 3) developing the reference model; 4) developing the causal diagram.

Port management try to improve the performance so that it becomes an attractive port
and could be competitive. Yeo et al. (2008) states that key factors for port
competitiveness have changed away from hardware and labor towards software and
technology, signifying that the most competitive ports depend on efficient hinterland.
Tongzon and Heng (2005) mention that private sector involvement in the port industry
is helpful for improving port operation efficiency. The operation efficiency is very
significant for port authorities and port operators to obtain a competitive advantage,
implying that partial port privatization is a merely effective way to assist port authorities
to win in the competition. It will encourage port management measures the port
performance to establish how knowledge has been applied in an efficient and effective
way (Marlow and Casaca, 2003).

3. Methodology
This integration is used to improve the performance in ports because the system of the
port is complex and the system dynamics approach is suitable. Port performance metrics
are used to monitor the performance baseline and to know how well the improvements
have been done with the improving of the sigma value and the process capability indices,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

and the reducing of the cost of poor quality. The sigma value is to measure the process
variability in the supply chain through cargo-handling processes such as damages or
defects, loss, equipment breakdown, transporter breakdown, the equipment and
transporter delay time, etc. The process capability indices are used to measure the
capability of the process in fulfillment of customer specifications. The cost of poor
quality is to measure the poor quality that influences the cost.

This research follows the methodology that refers to the development of a system
dynamics (SD) model that is integrated with six sigma methodology. The SD model built
relates to Sterman (2000) and consists of conceptualization, formulation, validation, and
the scenario of simulation, whereas the six sigma methodology refers to Pyzdek (2003),
with the improvement model known as the DMAIC process (define, measure, analyze,
improve, control). Integration System Dynamics and Six Sigma model are applied to
improving the performance in ports. The general model integrating six sigma and system
dynamics at ports can be seen in Figure 1 below:
Formulation the Measuring performance
Simulation of the Model The Improvement Scenarios
Model baseline
Define Step Measure Step Analyze Step Improve and Control Step
The supplier Conducting
The stock flow
input-process- Analyzing the the statistical
diagram of six
output-customer lean supply chain methods for
sigma model in
(SIPOC) in ports design
ports
diagram in ports scenarios of
improvement

The rich picture The causal


diagram of the relationship
between Changing or
port Analyzing the
variables in ports adding the input
behavior of the
parameters or
six sigma model
feedback loop for
in ports
The conceptual The base case of the improvement
model of six simulation of six scenarios
sigma in ports sigma model in
ports
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Designing the policy


Finding the of improvement
The validation causes of scenarios to
The key behavior of the
process of six improve lean supply
performance six model in ports
sigma model in chain in ports
indicators in port
ports
operation

Measuring Determining the


The causal loop the baseline main parameters Evaluation of the
diagram of six performance of for improving the performance of six
sigma model in six sigma model lean supply chain sigma model in
ports in ports in ports ports

Figure 1. Integration model of six sigma and system dynamics at ports


The model of the port performance metrics focuses on measuring performance baseline
in the ‘measure’ step and evaluation of the performance in the ‘improve and control’
step. This integration is used to improve the performance at ports because the system of
the port is complex and the interaction between variables are dynamic. System dynamics
approach enables to take into account dynamics of variables in ports as a complex
system. Performance metrics are used to monitor the performance baseline and to know
how well the improvements have been done with the increasing of the sigma value, the
process capability indices, and the cost of poor quality. The sigma value is to measure the
process variability in the supply chain through cargo-handling processes such as
damages or defects, loss, equipment breakdown, transporter breakdown, the equipment
and transporter delay time, etc. The process capability indices are used to measure the
capability of the process in fulfillment of customer specifications. The cost of poor
quality is used to measure the service quality of the port and focuses on the poor quality
cost factors of ports.
Dependency activities of the sigma value and process capability indices are sigma value
and process capability indices for delay time, lost cargo, damaged cargo, equipment
breakdown, and transporter breakdown. Whereas, dependency activities of the cost of
poor quality are prevention cost, appraisal cost, repair cost, demurrage cost, lost cargo
cost, damaged cost, internal failure cost, external failure cost, conformance cost, non-
conformance cost, and cost of poor quality.

4. Results and Discussions


4.1 Conceptual Model
The model of the port performance metrics is a part of the general model of six sigma
model in port using system dynamics. The conceptual model can be drawn as in the
figure 2 below:
THE PORT QUALITY LEVEL

THE PORT PERFORMANCE Cost of Poor


METRICS : Quality
1. Sigma Value
2. Process Capability Indices External
3. Cost of Poor Quality Failure Cost

Internal Failure Non Conformance


Cost Cost

THE PORT OPERATION


Conformance
Appraisal Cost
Number of Cost
Load of unloaded
vessel vessel
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Desired Prevention
number of Cost
Tugboat
unloaded Truck
productivity Opportunity
vessels productivity
Desired Cost
number of
tugboats Desired number
Berth Occupancy of trucks
Ratio (BOR)
Cargo
Vessel Waiting Throughput
Time Service time

Turn around
time Stock in
Desired number Desired
warehouse/
of cranes incoming cargo
stockpile

Customer
Crane order rate
productivity

Conveyor Desired speed of


productivity conveyor

Figure 2. Conceptual model of six sigma in ports using system dynamics

This model uses three parts, the port operation, the port quality level, and the port
performance metrics. In building the model, the port operation model refers to the
model developed by Briano et al.(2009) and Sterman (2000), whereas the port quality
level refers to the model developed by Kiani et al. (2009). Many adjustments to the
reference models of the port operation and the port quality level are required to build the
most suitable model in a given port. This research focuses on the port performance
metrics and the port quality level model.
The port quality level sub-system involves the service quality of the port and focuses on
the quality cost factors of ports, especially the quality cost of poor quality (COPQ). Many
activities in ports involve connected variables and cause the costs. The COPQ consists of
the conformance cost, non-conformance cost and opportunity cost. The conformance
cost involves control activities to prevent or detect poor quality. The conformance costs
in ports consist of prevention and appraisal costs that aim to prevent and assess poor
quality in the cargo-handling process. Secondly, the non-conformance cost involves the
failure activities to react to poor quality. The non-conformance costs consist of
demurrage costs, lost cargo costs, damaged cargo costs, and repair costs. Lastly, the
opportunity cost involves activities that are estimated as a profit, but are not taken into
account. The opportunity costs in ports consist of compensation costs for a worker on
training, compensation costs for lost and damaged cargo, and compensation costs for
equipment and transporter repair or maintenance.
The port performance metrics sub-system is utilized to measure the internal failures
with a sigma value, process capability indices, and cost of poor quality. The sigma value,
process capability, and cost of poor quality focus on lost cargo, damaged cargo,
equipment and transporter breakdown, and delay time of equipment and transporter.
The sigma value is used to control the process variability in ports and the process
capability indices (PCIs) are needed to know the process capability in fulfillment of
customer specifications. According to Ridwan and Noche (2014b), calculation of the
sigma value of the cargo handling process in the port shows the performance baseline to
be improved. Also, according to Ridwan and Noche (2014a), the PCIs were applied in the
supply chain of the cargo handling in a port, and indicated that the process capability in
cargo handling was capable of meeting the customer requirements.

4.2 The Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)


The CLD of the port quality level comprises the conformance cost, non-conformance
cost, and the opportunity cost. The conformance cost involves the prevention cost and
appraisal cost. This model focuses on the prevention and appraisal activities that can
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

cause internal failures in ports. The external and internal failure costs positively
influence the non-conformance costs. Both the conformance and non-conformance cost
have a positive link to the opportunity costs. Furthermore, the cost of poor quality
(COPQ) is assigned to these three main cost components, all of which can cause an
increase in the total COPQ. Ultimately, the quality level of the port is affected by the non-
conformance costs. The CLD of the port quality level is depicted in Figure 3 below:

External
+ Failure Cost
Internal
- Failure Cost

- +
Non-conformance
Cost
Appraisal Cost +
- +
+
Opportunity Cost +
+ Cost of Poor
Quality

+
Conformance Cost
Prevention Cost +
+
+

Figure 3.CLD of the port quality level


This research focuses on the CLD of the non-conformance cost that affected by the
internal failure cost and the external failure cost. The demurrage cost, repair cost,
damaged cargo cost, and lost cargo cost, positively influences the internal failure cost
components, whereas discounts due to the damage cost and complaint adjustment cost
have a positive link to the external failure cost. The general CLD of the non-conformance
cost is described in the Figure 4 below:
Complaint
Adjustment Cost

Discount due to
Damage cost
+ +
External
Failure Cost +
Non-Conformance
Lost Cargo Damage d Cost
Cost Cargo Cost
+
+ +
Internal
Failure Cost
+ +

Demurrage Repair Cost


Cost
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Figure 4.CLD of non-conformance cost

The CLD of the port performance metrics consists of the sigma value and the process
capability indices of lost and damaged cargo, equipment and transporter breakdown,
and equipment and transporter delay time. For instance, the CLD of the sigma value of
lost and damaged cargo can be viewed in Figure 5:
Number of
Critical to
Quality (CTQ)

Number of
Unloaded
Vessels _

+ Defects per Million


Opportunities (DPMO) _
of Lost Cargo Value of
+ sigma factor
+ Sigma Value of to Cpk
Lost Cargo

+
Load of vessel +
Amount of lost
cargo Process Capability
Indices of Lost Cargo
(Cpk)

Number of
Critical to
Quality (CTQ)

Number of
Unloaded
Vessels _

+
Defects per Million
Opportunities (DPMO) _
of Damaged Cargo Value of
+ sigma factor
+ to Cpk
Sigma Value of
Damaged Cargo
Load of vessel
+
+
Amount of
damaged cargo Process Capability
Indices of Damaged
Cargo (Cpk)

Figure 5. CLD of sigma value of lost and damaged cargo


The amount of lost cargo and damaged cargo and the vessel load influence the defects
per million opportunities (DPMO). CLD of the amount of lost and damaged cargo were
taken from the model of the internal failure cost in ports in Appendix (Fig. A.). The less
the DPMO of lost and damaged cargo, the greater the sigma value and process capability
indices of lost and damaged cargo.

4.3 The Stock Flow Diagram (SFD)


The stock flow diagram (SFD) of the port quality level consists of the conformance cost,
the non-conformance cost, and the opportunity cost, which together establish the cost of
poor quality (COPQ). This research focuses on the non-conformance cost that comes
from the rate of internal failure cost. The internal failure cost involves the repair cost,
demurrage cost, the lost cargo cost, and the damage cost. The internal failure cost, in
general, can be seen in in Appendix (Fig. B.)
All the port performance metrics are measured for the internal failures that happen in
the port. The sigma value and process capability indices are measured for the lost cargo,
damaged cargo, equipment and transporter breakdown, and the equipment and
transporter delay time. All failures have an effect on the internal failure cost. In this
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

research, all defects per million opportunities (DPMO) are measured in the whole supply
chain and focused on the sources of waste in the cargo handling process at the port. For
example, the stock flow diagram (SFD) of the sigma value and process capability indices
for lost cargo and damaged cargo can be seen in Figure 6 below:
Load per vessel
Number of Amount of Lost
Unloaded Cargo
vessels

Number of
berths
Sigma value for
Number of lost cargo Cpk
Process
CTQ Defects Per Million Conversion
Capability
Opportunities (DPMO) Indices (Cpk) of
of Lost Cargo Lost Cargo

Amount of Value of sigma


Load per vessel
Damaged Cargo factor to Cpk
Number of
Unloaded
vessels
Sigma
value for
Number of Damaged
berths cargo
Process Capability
Indices (Cpk) of Cpk
Defect Per Million
Number of Damaged Cargo Conversion
Opportunities (DPMO) of
CTQ Damaged Cargo

Value of sigma
factor to Cpk

Figure 6. SFD of sigma value and process capability indices of lost and damaged cargo

From Figure 6, amount of lost and damaged cargo influences the DPMO with the
positive polarity (reinforcing). The higher the amount of lost and damaged cargo the
higher the DPMO. Also, total cargo and number of critical to quality (CTQ) influences
the DPMO with the negative polarity (balancing). The higher the CTQ the lower the
DPMO. Total cargo is obtained by multiplication the load of vessel and number of
unloaded vessels. The DPMO of lost and damaged cargo influences the sigma value of
lost and damaged cargo. Sigma value influences the process capability indices (Cpk) with
the positive polarity (reinforcing). The higher the sigma value the higher the Cpk. The
lost and damaged cargo contributes to increasing the lost and damaged cargo costs,
which are components of the internal failure cost. SFD of the amount of lost and
damaged cargo were taken from the SFD model of the internal failure cost in ports in
Appendix (Fig. B.). Meanwhile, unloaded vessels were taken from the SFD of unloaded
vessels in Appendix (Fig. C.).

4.4 Mathematical Formulation

The mathematical formulation for all stocks in the stock flow diagram of the port
performance metrics model can be expressed in the numerical equations.
1. Sigma value
The sigma value is calculated based on continuous and discrete data. Sigma value is one
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

of performance metrics in six sigma concept. The higher the sigma value the higher the
performance. Six sigma concept allows the 1.5 shifting so that it is only 3.4 defect per
million opportunities. The formulation is as follows:
, ,  − 
4 = #5/"6   + . 8
, ,  (1)

For continuous data,


 −   − 
 = ( − ( <  + ( <   , , 
 
(2)

∑"( − )!
= 
"−
(3)

∑#
$ 
 =
" (4)

Whereas, for discrete data,


%−
−
 =  , , 
∑ ,23 (5)

∑"+$ &'(')* +
%−
− =
∑"$ %"* 
(6)

where DPMO represents defects per million opportunities,  represents natural


tolerance, Xbar represents the sample average, CTQ represents critical to quality, and u-
bar represents the sample average for discrete data.

2. Capability process indices


The process capability indices with the calculation Cpk. The formulation is as follows:
 −   − 
,-. = /" ∶  , 
1 1
(7)
∑"( − )!
= 
"− (8)

∑#
$ 
 =
" (9)

Meanwhile, for discrete data,


Sigma Value
Cpk =
3
(10)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

where  represents a natural tolerance, USL represents the upper specification limit, LSL
represents the lower specification limit, and Xbar represents the sample average.

4.5 Measuring The Baseline Performance of Model


The baseline performance of the port performance metrics model is measured to
improve the high performance in ports. In this research, the sigma value and the process
capability indices were selected as six sigma tools to measure the baseline performance.
El-Haik and Roy (2005) declare that the majority of measures in a service or process will
focus on speed, cost, quality, efficiency, and effectiveness. The sigma value and process
capability indices related to the lost cargo, damaged cargo, and transporter and
equipment breakdown. The next Figure 7 shows the performance metrics used to
measure waste in ports:

Waste in Ports Internal Failure Cost in ports

Delay of Equipment and


Demurrage Cost
Transporter

Equipment and Transporter


Repair Cost
Breakdown

Lost Cargo Lost Cargo Cost

Damaged Cargo Damaged Cargo Cost

Six Sigma Tools


Six Sigma Tools

Sigma
Value Cost of Poor
Quality
Process Capability
Indices
Figure 7. Port performance metrics to measure waste in ports

4.6 Base Case Simulation


The real data in a port are required to run the base case simulation. Simulations for the
base case were executed by using historical data of CDG Port, Banten-Indonesia from
2013. Powersim Software Studio 10 Academic User was utilized to carry out the
simulation. Some limitations and assumptions are needed to run the base case
simulation, as follows:
a. This model was input with real data on the dry bulk port from CDG Port Terminal
1 in the year 2013.
b. The relationship between variables and checking of data distribution were
calculated statistically by other software such as Matlab, Statfit, and Minitab.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

c. Demand for unloading cargo in the port is continuous.


d. The equipment and transporter capacity is based on actual conditions in the port.
e. Operational costs in the port are beyond the scope of this research.
CDG Port is one of the biggest ports in Indonesia and provides loading and unloading
facilities for all raw materials, products, and spare parts. CDG Port has a specialization
operating as a port terminal for dry bulk cargos. CDG Port gives a total solution to
handle bulk materials. The aim of dry bulk port terminals is to store the bulk materials
temporarily for their customers. Also, there are stockpiles and warehouses at the dry
bulk port terminals that act as a buffer to avoid delays in the shipment to end customers.
Numerous facilities are managed by CDG Port, such as the dock, dealing with
equipment, supporting equipment, supporting facilities, warehouses, and safety and
security. Data of constants for the port operation can be seen in Appendix (Table F).
Data of constants for the port quality level can be seen in Appendix (Table G). Data of the
port operation and port quality level is used in the simulation process.
This research focuses to the port performance metrics model. Data of constants, decision
variables (input variables), and respond variables (output variables) can be seen in
Appendix (Table D.1 and D.2). Meanwhile, data of functions and equations can be seen
in Appendix (Table E.) The simulation results of the six sigma tools are based on the
base simulation as follows:
1. The sigma value (SV) and the process capability indices (Cpk)
These metrics are chosen to measure the baseline performance of the lost cargo,
damaged cargo, equipment breakdown, transporter breakdown, and delay time. From
the Table I, the SV and Cpk of lost cargo showed a fluctuation and the lowest values of
SV and Cpk in September 2013, with SV = 5.07 and Cpk = 1.69.

Table I. Sigma value and process capability indices of the lost cargo
Time Sigma_value_for_ lost_cargo (sigma) Cpk_of_lost_cargo (Cpk)
Jan 01, 2013 5.86 1.95 5
Feb 01, 2013 5.54 1.85
Mar 01, 2013 5.23 1.74
Apr 01, 2013 5.32 1.77
May 01, 2013 5.22 1.74
Jun 01, 2013 5.15 1.72
Jul 01, 2013 5.31 1.77
Aug 01, 2013 5.26 1.75
Sep 01, 2013 5.07 1.69
Oct 01, 2013 5.12 1.71
Nov 01, 2013 5.20 1.73
Dec 01, 2013 5.22 1.74 6
Non-commercial use only!
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

In general, the sigma values of the lost and damaged cargo were in the 5 sigma-level,
which showed that poor quality of cargo is not significant, and the process capability
indices above 1.33 determine that the cargo-handling process can meet the customer
requirements or specifications. The behavior of sigma value and process capability
indices of the lost cargo can be seen in Figure 8 below.
Non-commercial use only!
sigm a Cpk
6.0 2.0
Sigma_value_for_ lost_cargo

5.8

1.9
Cpk_of_lost_cargo

5.6

5.4 1.8

5.2

1.7

De cJa nFe bMa rAprMa yJun JulAugSe pO ctNovDe c De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Apr Ma y Jun Jul Aug Se p O ct Nov De c
2013 2013
Non-commercial use only! Non-commercial use only!
Figure 8. The behavior of Sigma value and process capability indices of the lost cargo

However, the sigma values of the equipment and transporter breakdown and delay time
were above the 3 sigma-level, which showed that poor quality is significant and needs to
be eliminated or reduced, while the process capability indices approaching the minimum
level indicate that the cargo-handling process can meet customer requirements or
specifications at the minimum limit.
2. The cost of poor quality
As depicted in Table II, the cost of non-conformance was the highest cost among the
other three cost factors of quality aspects, so the main point for improvement is to
reduce the total non-conformance cost.
Table II. Simulation results for cost of poor quality components
Time Non_Conformance_ Cost Conformance_Cost Opportunity_Cost Cost_of_Poor_Quality_COPQ
Jan 01, 2013 $10,746.67 $36,525.45 $32,992.37 $21,138.95 5
Feb 01, 2013 $62,359.26 $85,780.31 $83,445.35 $113,587.66
Mar 01, 2013 $128,138.77 $119,280.11 $108,517.93 $236,597.97
Apr 01, 2013 $171,527.20 $126,730.22 $110,057.15 $335,719.23
May 01, 2013 $184,674.30 $128,638.13 $107,399.66 $387,622.08
Jun 01, 2013 $179,728.48 $132,105.40 $106,304.04 $408,083.89
Jul 01, 2013 $169,500.26 $132,770.26 $101,722.47 $409,901.46
Aug 01, 2013 $160,030.75 $144,123.72 $102,991.07 $405,939.83
Sep 01, 2013 $155,828.72 $157,797.12 $111,945.50 $412,865.95
Oct 01, 2013 $157,926.72 $148,137.73 $112,003.57 $420,873.71
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Nov 01, 2013 $159,582.91 $117,305.40 $98,205.55 $404,692.79


Dec 01, 2013 $155,314.45 $101,937.26 $88,520.19 $372,729.58 6
Non-commercial use only!
The behavior of cost of poor quality components can be seen in Figure 9 below.
Non-commercial use only!

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000
Cost

$200,000

$100,000

$0
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013

Cost_of_Poor_Quality_COPQ Conformance_Cost Non_Conformance_ Cost Opportunity_Cost


Non-commercial use only!
Figure 9. The behavior of cost of poor quality components

The non-conformance cost is influenced by the internal and external failure costs. The
greatest influence comes from the internal failure cost. From Table III, the internal
failure cost contributes most of the non-conformance cost. The components of the
internal failure cost can be viewed below.
Table III. Simulation result for internal failure cost components
Time Repair_Cost Lost_Cargo_Cost Damaged_cargo_cost Demurrage_Cost
Jan 01, 2013 $68,645.05 $1,589.22 $557.62 $39,361.29 5
Feb 01, 2013 $92,356.19 $6,979.98 $1,473.32 $95,800.48
Mar 01, 2013 $73,864.96 $22,521.54 $2,855.34 $106,212.30
Apr 01, 2013 $51,005.57 $36,008.25 $3,817.22 $89,693.31
May 01, 2013 $35,458.87 $48,493.71 $4,673.91 $69,224.01
Jun 01, 2013 $27,337.36 $58,298.65 $5,443.17 $54,294.74
Jul 01, 2013 $24,665.54 $59,841.59 $5,574.55 $46,291.65
Aug 01, 2013 $26,200.32 $62,474.26 $5,705.37 $44,379.23
Sep 01, 2013 $28,314.40 $69,462.58 $6,404.53 $45,999.96
Oct 01, 2013 $29,214.72 $67,918.93 $6,339.02 $48,132.74
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Nov 01, 2013 $29,296.11 $54,618.05 $5,055.67 $49,138.51


Dec 01, 2013 $29,974.99 $45,143.21 $4,130.06 $50,053.28 6
Non-commercial use only!

From the graph, the demurrage cost is the highest cost, followed by the repair cost and
lost cargo cost. Based on this result, an improvement scenario is formulated to reduce
these three cost factors simultaneously. The behavior of internal failure cost components
can be seen in Figure 10 below.
Non-commercial use only!
$200,000

$180,000

$160,000

$140,000

$120,000
C o st

$100,000

$80,000

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$0
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013

Repair_Cost Internal_failure_cost Demurrage_Cost


Damaged_cargo_cost Lost_Cargo_Cost
Non-commercial use only!
Figure 10. The behavior of internal failure cost components
4.7 Validation Process
According to Sterman (2000), the seven primary tests that had been done to the base
case model of the port performance metrics are as follows:
1. Boundary Adequacy
A stock flow diagram and a causal loop diagram have been constructed and discussed
with experts in the real case.
2. Structure Assessment
The structure of the model is consistent and closely depicts the real system
3. Dimensional Consistency
Every parameter of the variables in the model is checked one by one and the units fit
the related variables
4. Parameter Assessment
The parameters in the base case model variables were taken using a numerical
calculation from the company, especially for the constant values, with interviews and
expert opinion for defining the relationship of each related variable.
5. Extreme Condition
Using a value of zero for the operation cycle of trucks describes the situation where
there is no truck operating in the dry bulk port terminal so that also no goods can be
stocked in the warehouse.
6. Integration Error
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

There are no significant changes in the value of berth occupancy when setting
different time steps between 0.3 days and 10 days. This indicates that the model can
be accepted.
7. Behavior Reproduction
The t-test result shows that there are no differences between the actual and
simulation results.
4.8 The Policy of Improvement Scenarios
From the simulation results, the sigma value is measured before and after the
improvement scenarios as the degree of quality improvement in the port performance.
The sigma value of the port performance before and after improvement can be seen in
Table IV below:
Table IV. Sigma value of the port performance before and after improvement by simulation
Before After Change
No Sigma Value of the wastes in port
(%)
1 Sigma value of lost cargo 5.26 5.47 3.99
2 Sigma value of damaged cargo 5.74 5.91 2.96
Sigma value of transporter
3 2.72 3.80 39.71
breakdown
Sigma value of equipment
4 3.46 3.62 4.62
breakdown
5 Sigma value of delay time 3.47 3.06 -11.82

The sigma values in Table IV represent the poor quality in cargo-handling process at the
port. This research uses an aggregate perspective for the sigma value approach in the
whole supply chain at the port. These sigma values try to reach the desired value of 6
sigma-level as a steady state value. The trend of the sigma value can be seen in detail in
Figure 11 below. From Figure 11, all the sigma values have been increased after the
improvement except the delay time, which is because increasing the number of transport
maintenance items has the effect of increasing the delay time due to maintenance. The
six sigma of the transporter breakdown has increased sharply by 39.71% as a result of
increasing the number of transport maintenance items. The sigma value of the lost and
damaged cargo was the highest sigma, both before and after the scenario of
improvements. Meanwhile, the sigma values of equipment and transporter breakdown
and delay time were the lowest sigma before and after the scenario of improvements. The
high and low sigma indicate the quality of the waste. The higher the sigma value, the less
waste in the port. Nevertheless, all types of waste must be improved to achieve a high
performance in the port.

sigm a
6

4
Sigm a Value

2
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

0
13 14 15 16 17

Year
Sigma_value_of_lost_cargo Sigma_value_of_damaged_cargo
Sigma_value_of_transporter_breakdown Sigma_value_of_equipment_breakdowon
Sigma_value_of_delay_time
Non-commercial use only!
a) Before
sigm a
6

4
Sigm a Value

0
13 14 15 16 17

Year
Sigma_value_of_ transporter_ breakdown Sigma_value_of_ equipment_breakdown
Sigma_value_of_ lost_cargo Sigma_value_of_ damaged_cargo
Sigma_value_of_ delay_time
Non-commercial use only!
b) After

Figure 11. Comparison of the sigma values for all areas of port performance
From the simulation results, the process capability indices (Cpk) as performance metrics
are measured before and after the improvement scenarios as the degree of quality
improvement in the port’s performance. The process capability indices (Cpk) before and
after improvement can be seen in Table V below:
Table V. Process capability indices before and after improvement by simulation
Before After Change
No Cost Components
(%)
1 Cpk of lost cargo 1.75 1.82 4.00
2 Cpk of damaged cargo 1.91 1.97 3.14
Cpk of transporter
3 0.91 1.27 39.56
breakdown
4 Cpk of equipment breakdown 1.15 1.21 5.22
5 Cpk of delay time 1.16 1.02 12.07
The process capability indices (Cpk) in Table V represent the process capability to meet
customer requirements or specifications. Also, this research uses an aggregate
perspective for the process capability indices approach in the whole supply chain at the
port. These process capability indices try to reach the desired value of 2 Cpk-level as a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

steady state value. The trend of the process capability indices (Cpk) can be seen in detail
in the figure below. From Figure 11, all the Cpk have been increased after the
improvements except the delay time, because increasing the number of transport
maintenance items has the effect of increasing the delay time due to maintenance. The
Cpk of transporter breakdown increased significantly by 39.56% as a result of increasing
the number of transport maintenance items. Similarly to the sigma value, the highest
Cpk was for lost and damaged cargo, both before and after the scenario of
improvements. Meanwhile, the Cpk values of equipment and transporter breakdown and
delay time have the minimum value both before and after the scenario of improvements.
The high and low Cpk values denote the process capability of the port to eliminate waste.
The higher the Cpk, the greater the capability to eliminate waste in the port. This
simulation can help to monitor Cpk values over time and to take actions to reduce or
eliminate waste so that the lean supply chain is achieved.

The behavior reflected in the measurement of the sigma value and Cpk in Figures 12 and
13 follows the structure of the goal seeking after the improvements. This is because the
trend of the sigma value will try to reach the goal of the six sigma value and the trend of
Cpk will try to seek the target value in Cpk 2.0. The goal-seeking behavior arises due to
the negative feedback loop structure. There are discrepancies between the actual and
desired sigma values and Cpk. The improvement scenarios are addressed to obtain the
behavior of the actual sigma value and Cpk, so as to achieve the desired value.
Cpk
2.0

1.8

1.6
P ro ce s C a p a b ility I n d ice s

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

0.2

0.0
13 14 15 16 17

Year
Cpk_of_lost_cargo Cpk_of_damaged_cargo Cpk_of_transporter_breakdown
Cpk_of_equipment_breakdown Cpk_of_delay_time
Non-commercial use only!
a) Before
Cpk
2.0

1.8

1.6
Process Capability Indices

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
13 14 15 16 17

Year
Cpk_of_delay_time Cpk_of_lost_cargo Cpk_of_transporter_breakdown
Cpk_of_equipment_breakdown Cpk_of_ damaged_cargo
Non-commercial use only!
b) After

Figure 12. Comparison of the Cpk for all areas of port performance
These improvement scenarios focus on decreasing the internal failure cost, which
influences the cost of poor quality. The simulation results before and after are compared
as depicted in the Table VI below:
Table VI. Simulation results of the internal failure cost before and after improvement
policies
Key Performances Before After Decreasing
No
Indicators ($) ($) (%)
1 Demurrage Cost 150101 90143 39.95
2 Repair Cost 87304 27489 68.51
3 Lost cargo cost 189256 73248 61.30
4 Internal Failure Cost 433406 192781 55.52
5 Opportunity Cost 324401 148952 54.08
6 Cost of Poor Quality 1184944 854249 27.91

The cost values in Table VI try to achieve the the target as a steady state value due to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

delay factors in the system. The demurrage cost, repair cost, and lost cargo cost can be
decreased by 39.95%, 68.51%, and 61.30% respectively. The total reduction of the
internal failure cost is 55.52%. Meanwhile, the cost of poor quality can be reduced by
27.91%. The Figure 13 below shows the trend of the components of the internal failure
cost as a non-conformance cost before and after improvements by simulation.
$1,000,000

$900,000

$800,000

$700,000

$600,000
Cost

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0
13 14 15 16 17

Year
Repair_Cost Internal_failure_cost Demurrage_Cost
Cargo_Damage_Cost Lost_Cargo_Cost
Non-commercial use only!

a) Before
$1,000,000

$900,000

$800,000

$700,000

$600,000
Cost

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0
13 14 15 16 17

Year
Repair_Cost Internal_failure_cost Demurrage_Cost
Cargo_Damage_Cost Lost_Cargo_Cost
Non-commercial use only!

b) After
Figure 13. Trend of the internal failure cost before and after improvement by
simulation: a) before improvement; b) after improvement
5. Conclusion
The port performance is measured with the performance metrics, namely the sigma
value, the process capability indices, and the cost of poor quality. These metrics are
utilized to eliminate waste in order to improve the high performance in the port. This
waste consists of lost and damaged cargo, equipment and transporter breakdown, and
equipment and transporter delay time. The cost of poor quality decreases and it will
improve the performance at ports by the improving of the sigma value and the process
capability indices (Cpk) of waste in ports as performance metrics. For the case study,
faced with a 5.4% annual growth of dry bulk cargo demand, the waste can be measured
with the sigma value, the process capability indices (Cpk), and the cost of poor quality.
After the improvements, sigma value and Cpk of the transporter breakdown can be
increased sharply by 39.71% and 39.56%. The demurrage cost, repair cost, and lost cargo
cost can be decreased by 39.95%, 68.51%, and 61.30% respectively. The total reduction
of the internal failure cost is 55.52% and the cost of poor quality can be reduced by
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

27.91%. With this model, changes in the sigma value, Cpk, and the cost of the waste can
be identified and the results analyzed so as to take action. All areas of the waste must be
reduced or eliminated to achieve a high performance in the port.

For the future similiar activities/projects, port performance metrics model can be used
to improve the performance in ports directly with the sigma value, the process capability
indices, and the cost of poor quality. Improving the values of the sigma value, the process
capability indices, and the cost of poor quality in the simulation, indicate the port’s
performance improve to reach the target of the metrics.

References
Besterfield, D.H. et al. (2003), Total Quality Management, Pearson Educational
International, New Jersey, NJ.
Briano, E., Caballini, C., Mosca, M. and Revetria, R.( 2009), "A system dynamics decision
cockpit for a container terminal: The case of voltri terminal Europe", International
Journal of Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol.3 No.2, pp.55–64.
Crosby, P.B.(1979), Quality is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Carr, L., 1992. Applying cost of quality to a service business. Sloan Management Review, 4.
Deming, W.E.(2000), Out of The Crisis, MIT-CAES Press, Massachusett.
El-Haik, B., and Roy, D.M.(2005), Service design for six sigma: A roadmap for excellence,
John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Forrester, J.W.(1961), Principle of Systems, MIT Press, Massachusetts.
Forrester, J.W.(1992), "System Dynamics, Systems Thinking, and Soft OR", System
Dynamics Review, Vol.10 No.2, pp.1–14.
Forrester, J.W.(2007), "System dynamics—a personal view of the first fifty years", System
Dynamics Review, Vol.23 No.23, pp.345–358.
Gunasekaran, A. and McGaughey, R.E.(2003), "TQM is supply chain management", The
TQM Magazine, Vol.15, pp.361–363.
Hansen, D.R. and Mowen, M.M., 2006. Cost managment accounting & control. 5th ed.
Kentucky: Thomson Learning.
Harrington, H.J., 1999. Performance improvement: a total poor-quality cost system. The
TQM Magazine, 11(4), pp.221–230.
Jafari, H. (2013), "Increase the Efficiency Rate of Container Loading and Unloading Using
Six Sigma Method", International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences,
Vol.4 No.6, pp.1438–1447.
Juran, J. and Godfrey, A.B. (1999), Juran’S Quality Handbook. Fifth Edition, McGraw- Hill
New York, NY.
Kane, V.E. (1986), "Process Capability Indices", Journal of Quality Technology, Vol.18 No.1,
pp.41–52.
Khataie, A.H. and Bulgak, A. a., 2013. A cost of quality decision support model for lean
manufacturing: activity-based costing application. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, 30(7), pp.751–764.
Kiani, B., Shirouyehzad, H., Bafti, F.K. and Fouladgar, H., 2009. System dynamics approach
to analysing the cost factors effects on cost of quality. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 26(7), pp.685–698.
McCarty, T., Bremer, M., Daniels, L. and Gupta, P. (2004), The Six Sigma Black Belt
Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Mei, S., and Xin, H. (2010), "A system dynamics model for port operation system based on
time, quality and profit", in 2010 International Conference on Logistics Systems and
Intelligent Management (ICLSIM) in Harbin, China, 2010, IEEE, Vol.3, pp.1669–
1673.
Montgomery, D.C. (2005), Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, John & Wiley Sons,
New Jersey, NJ.
Nooramin, A.S., Ahouei, V.R. and Sayareh, J. (2011), "A Six Sigma framework for marine
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

container terminals", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol.2 No.3, pp.241–
253.
Pande, P. and Holpp, L. (2002), What is Six Sigma ?, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way How GE,
Motorola, and Other Top Companies are Honning Their Performance, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Pearn, W.L., Wu, C.W. and Wang, K.H. (2004), "Capability measure for asymmetric
tolerance non-normal processes applied to speaker driver manufacturing"', The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol.25 No.5-6,
pp.506–515.
Pyzdek, T. (2003), The Six Sigma handbook: a complete guide for green belts, black belts,
and managers at all levels, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pidd, M. (2003), Tools for Thinking : Modelling in Management Science, Second edition,
John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
Ramudhin, A., Alzaman, C. and Bulgak, A. a., 2008. Incorporating the cost of quality in
supply chain design. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(1), pp.71–
86.
Ridwan, A. and Noche, B.(2014a), "Analyzing Process Capability Indices (PCI) and Cost of
Poor Quality (COPQ) to Improve Performance of Supply Chain", in Blecker, T.,
Kersten, W. and Ringle,C.M. (Ed.), Innovative Methods in Logistics and Supply
Chain : Current Issues and Emerging Practices in Hamburg, Germany, 2014, epubl
Gmbh, Berlin, pp.415–437.
Ridwan, A. and Noche, B.(2014b), "Improving Performance of Supply Chain in Port by Six
Sigma Methodology Approach", in Pujawan, I., Vanany, I. and Baihaqi, I. (Ed.), 6th
International Conference on Operations and Supply Chain Management in Bali,
Indonesia, 2014, LSCM-ITS, Surabaya, pp.165–177.
Sterman, J.D. (2000), Business Dynamics : Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex
World, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Schiffauerova, A. and Thomson, V., 2006. A review of research on cost of quality models and
best practices. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(6),
pp.647–669.
Sower, V.E., Quarles, R. and Broussard, E., 2007. Cost of quality usage and its relationship to
quality system maturity. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 24(2), pp.121–140.
Sandoval-Chávez, D. a. and Beruvides, M.G., 1998. Using opportunity costs to determine the
cost of quality: A Case Study in a Continuous-Process Industry. The Engineering
Economist, 43(2), pp.107-124.
Tsai, W.H., 1998. Quality cost measurement under activity-based costing. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(7), pp.719–752.
Tongzon, J. and Heng, W., 2005. Port privatization, efficiency and competitiveness:
Some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals). Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39, pp.405-424.
Yeo, G.T., Pak, J.Y. and Yang, Z. (2013), "Analysis of dynamic effects on seaports adopting
port security policy". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice", Vol.49,
pp.285–301.
Yeo, G.T., Roe, M. and Dinwoodie, J., 2008. Evaluating the competitiveness of container
ports in Korea and China. Transportation Research, 42, pp.910–921.
Yuan, H. and Wang, J. (2014), "A system dynamics model for determining the waste disposal
charging fee in construction", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.237
No.3, pp.988–996.

Appendices
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Fig. A. The causal loop diagram of the internal failure cost in ports
Load of Vessel

+ +
Load of Vessel
Lost Cargo
Cost
Amount of Lost +
Cargo +
- + Damaged +
- Cargo Cost
+ Demurrage + Internal
Cost Failure Cost
+ Total of
Delay Time +
+
Amount of Total Repair
- Damaged Cargo Delay time due Cost
+
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

- Delay time due to Repair


+
to Maintenance +
+
Repair Cost of
+ + Repair Cost of Equipment
Transporter
+ +
Transporter
Equipment Repair Time
Number of
Safety & Security Repair Time
+ Equipment
Cost
Number of Breakdown items
+
Transporter
Breakdown items

Cargo inspection
Cost

Transporter
Maintenance
Time

Equipment
Maintenance
Time
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Fig. B. The stock flow diagram of the internal failure cost in ports
Amount of Lost
Cargo

Lost Cargo Rate Discard Out Rate


of Lost Cargo
Adj Time

Lost Cargo Adj Time


Cost Adjustment

Cost per Lost Total Number


Cargo Adj Time of Cargo

Lost Cargo
Adj Cost
Time
Amount of
Damaged cargo Lost Cargo Cost Discard Out Rate of
Rate Lost Cargo

Damaged Cargo Discard Out Rate


Rate of Damaged Cargo
Discard Out Rate of
Internal Failure Internal Failure
Cost Rate Cost
Cost per Damaged
Cargo
Adj Internal Failure
Damaged Time Cost
Cargo Cost
Adj
Damaged Cargo Internal
Adj Time
Cost Failure Cost adj

Damage Cargo Cost Discard Out Rate


Rate of Damaged Cargo
Cost

Demurrage
Cost Rate Demurrage Cost
Adj Time

Repair Cost Rate Repair Cost Discard Out Rate of


Adj Demurrage Cost
Demurrage
Repair Cost per Repair Cost Cost Adj Time
Transporter item per
Repair Time per Discard Out Rate Equipment
Transporter item of Repair Cost item Demurrage Cost
Repair Cost of per hour
Transporter
Total Repair Time
Repair Cost Repair Time
for Transporter Total delay
of Equipment per Equipment
Discard Out Rate of time
Transporter to be item
Transporter to be Repaired Total Repair Time
Repaired Rate
for Equipment
Delay Rate Due to Discard Out Rate of
Delay Due Discard Out Delay Rate Due to Delay Due to
Number of Repair Delay Due to
Number of to Repair Out of Delay Maintenance Maintenance
Transporter Maintenance
Equipment Due to Repair
Breakdown Items Discard Out Rate of
Equipment to be Breakdown Items
Equipment to be
Repaired Rate
Repaired
Adj Time
Adj
Time
Adj Time

Adj Time
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Fig. C. The stock flow diagram of the port operation

Vessel Arrival Vessel Departure


rate Number of rate
Unloaded
Vessels

Adjustment
Adjustment
Time
Time
Expectation of
vessel arrival
Load of vessel
Total desired of
throughput Cycle number
Desired number of Productivity of of tugboat Capacity of crane
tugboats Tugboat operation
Operation cycle of
Time period of
crane
tugboat
Capacity
The increasing of The decreasing of of
tugboat Crane
tugboat rate Number tugboat rate
Productivity
of
tugboats Desired of
crane

Adjustment Adjustment
The increasing of The Decreasing of
time Time
crane rate crane rate
Number
Berthing time
of cranes

Berth equivalent

Adjustment
time Adjustment
Approach time
time

Service time Load of vessel


Table D. Constant, decision and respond variables in the Port Performance Metrics
Table D.1 Constants variables in the Port Performance Metrics

No Variables Unit Value


1 Number of CTQ 3
2 Time period mo 1<<mo>>
3 Number of berths berth 10<<berth>>

4 Available time of transporter hour 720<<hr>>


5 Available time of equipment hour 720<<hr>>
6 Value of sigma factor to Cpk sigma 3<<sigma>>
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

7 Cpk Conversion Cpk 1<<Cpk>>

Table D.2 Decision and respond variables of the Port Performance Metrics

No Decision Variables (Input) Respond Variables (Output)

Sigma Value and Process Capability Indices (Cpk) for


1 Total delay time
delay time
Sigma Value and Process Capability Indices (Cpk) for
2 Amount of lost cargo
lost cargo
Sigma Value and Process Capability Indices (Cpk) for
3 Amount of damaged cargo
damaged cargo
Total repair time for Sigma Value and Process Capability Indices (Cpk) for
4
equipment equipment breakdown
Total repair time for Sigma Value and Process Capability Indices (Cpk) for
5
transporter transporter breakdown
6 Available time of equipment
7 Available time of transporter
8 Total of service time
9 Load of vessel
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

Table E. Functions and Equations in the Port Performance Metrics

No. Variables Type Unit Equations

(IF((NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million


Opportunities_DPMO_of_Delay_Time')/1000000)+1.5)>6,6,(NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million
1 Sigma_value_for_ delay_time Auxiliary sigma
Opportunities_DPMO_of_Delay_Time')/1000000)+1.5)))
*Sigma_conversion
(IF((NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million Opportunities_ DPMO_of_
Sigma_value_for_
2 Auxiliary sigma Transporter_breakdown')/1000000)+1.5)>6,6,(NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million Opportunities_
transporter_breakdown
DPMO_of_ Transporter_breakdown')/1000000)+1.5)))*Sigma_conversion
(IF((NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million Opportunities_DPMO_of_equipment_
Sigma_value_for_
3 Auxiliary sigma breakdown')/1000000)+1.5)>6,6,(NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million Opportunities_DPMO_of_equipment_
equipment_breakdown
breakdown')/1000000)+1.5)))*Sigma_conversion
Process_Capability_Indices_
4 Auxiliary Cpk 'Sigma_value_for_ Equipment_breakdown'/'Value_of Sigma_factor_ to_Cpk'*Cpk_conversion
Equipment_breakdown
(IF((NORMINV((1000000-'DPMO_Damaged_ cargo')/1000000)+1.5)>6,6,(NORMINV((1000000-
5 Sigma_value_for_ damaged_cargo Auxiliary sigma
'DPMO_Damaged_ cargo')/1000000)+1.5)))*Sigma_conversion
Process_Capability_Indices_for_
6 Auxiliary Cpk 'Sigma_value_for_ damaged_cargo'/'Value_of Sigma_factor_ to_Cpk'*Cpk_conversion
damaged_cargo
Defects per Million
(('Total_Repair_Time _for_Equipment'/('Available_time_of_ equipment'*'Number_of
7 Opportunities_DPMO_of_ Auxiliary
_CTQ_repair_time_of_equipment'))*1000000)
equipment_ breakdown
Defects per Million Opportunities_ (('Total_Repair_Time_ for_Transporter'/('Available_time_of_ transporter'*'Number_of
8 Auxiliary
DPMO_of_ Transporter_breakdown _CTQ_repair_time_of_transporter'))*1000000)
9 Total_of_ service_time Auxiliary day Service_time*Unloaded_vessels*Number_of_berths
Process_Capability_Indices_Cpk_of_
10 Auxiliary Cpk 'Sigma_value_for_ delay_time'/'Value_of Sigma_factor_ to_Cpk'*Cpk_conversion
delay_time
Defects per Million
11 Opportunities_DPMO_of_ Auxiliary (Total_delay_time/('Total_of_ service_time'*'Number_of_CTQ_ delay_time'))*1000000
Delay_Time
Defects per Million
((amount_of_damaged_cargo/(Load_of_vessel*'Number_of
12 Opportunities_DPMO_ Auxiliary
_CTQ_Damaged'*Unloaded_vessels*time_period*Number_of_berths))*1000000)
Damaged_ cargo
(IF((NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million
13 Sigma_value_for_ lost_cargo Auxiliary sigma Opportunities_DPMO_of_Lost_cargo')/1000000)+1.5)>6,6,(NORMINV((1000000-'Defects per Million
Opportunities_DPMO_of_Lost_cargo')/1000000)+1.5)))*Sigma_conversion
Process_Capability_Indices_Cpk_of_
14 Auxiliary Cpk 'Sigma_value_for_ lost_cargo'/'Value_of Sigma_factor_ to_Cpk'*Cpk_conversion
lost_cargo
Defects per Million
((amount_of_lost_cargo/(Load_of_vessel*Number_of_CTQ*Unloaded_vessels*
15 Opportunities_DPMO Auxiliary
time_period*Number_of_berths))*1000000)
_of_Lost_cargo
Table F. Constants in the port operation

No Contants Unit Value


1 Cycle_number_of_ tugboat_operation cycle/da 5<cycle/da>>
2 Capacity_of_ tugboat vessel/(boat*cycle) 0.5<<vessel/boat/cycle>>
3 Operation_cycle_of_crane cycle/da 315<<cycle/da>>
4 Lifting_capacity_of_crane ton/(crane*cycle) 14<<ton/crane/cycle>>
Adjusment_time_for_decreasing_and
5 mo 1<<mo>>
increasing of crane and tugboat,
6 Number_of_berths berths 10<<berths>>
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 03:14 21 November 2017 (PT)

7 Load_of_vessel ton/(mo*vessel) 18225<<tons/mo/vessel>>

Table G. Constants in the port quality level

No Constants Unit Values

1 Cost per lost cargo USD/Tons 254<<USD/Tons>>

2 Adjustment time mo 1<<mo>>

3 Cost per Damaged Cargo USD/Tons 190.5<<USD/Tons>>

4 Repair Time per Transporter Item hr/item 4.91<<hr/item>>

5 Demurrage Cost per hour USD/hr 291.67<<USD/hr>>

6 Repair Time per Equipment item hr/item 7.8<<hr/item>>

7 Repair cost per equipment item USD/item 3610<<USD/item>>

8 Repair cost per transporter item USD/item 653<<USD/item>>

S-ar putea să vă placă și